American Progress created a television advertisement for BeAWitness.org, our netroots campaign that calls out the television news media for their deplorable coverage of the genocide in Darfur. Over the last few days, three Washington DC television affiliates, NBC-4, CBS-9, and ABC-7, informed us that they refuse to air the ad.

Go over and watch the ad. It's powerful and accurate. Then send your message to the networks demainding they air the ad.

Just more evidence that it's a slow news month.
I mean, it's hardly surprising that network affiliates would refuse to run advertising which takes issue (or "calls out") their own news services, regardless of how accurate it may be.
Would TalkLeft accept advertising from Townhall which called it out on it's obvious liberal bias?
Would the DNC website run advertising placed by the GOP denouncing the obvious influence over Democratic Senators enjoyed by PFAW and the AFLCIO?
Would the RNC site run advertising paid for by Move-On.org questioning Bush's motives for going to Iraq?
What exactly is the issue here? It's certainly not one of free speech.

What exactly is the issue here? It's certainly not one of free speech.

Groups and blogs like the GOP, DNC, and Talk Left make it clear that they are taking certain political stances.
News agencies like CBS, NBC, ABC, et all are supposed to be "fair and balanced," or so they tell us all the time.
That may be the issue here. Anyone else?

TL is NOT a network broadcasting on the public airwaves, with a legal obligation to provide, for example, public service announcements. This ad falls into that category to the nth degree. It is not selling anything.
Relieving networks, who have a duty to serve the public interest, of any obligation to present pointed, passionate opposition to their editorial policies is nothing short of political cowardice more suited to an old boy's club than an agent of the publicly owned airwaves.
If we had more unedited debate on the airwaves, with participation by more people, I dare say we'd have a healthier society. The more we know about each other, the more we engage in honest, respectful debate of vital issues, the more we live up to the idea of the enlightened citizen that our founding fathers (and mothers) envisioned a truly free and democratic -- and prosperous -- society requiring.
But, hey, who needs to see anything that true and on the mark? It's much nicer to wave the big "We're Number One!" foam finger and take a pass on the really difficult stuff.

Dadler,
The TV stations bought and paid for the right to broadcast the material they choose, and those licenses give them the power to refrain from broadcasting material with which they disagree.
Which is not to say there is no hypcrisy in their position, or that a willingness to present opposing viewpoints would not constitute a public service, but it is hardly suprising that they choose not to air ads attacking them directly.
What "legal obligation" do those stations have to choose public service announcements YOU feel are appropriate? Please provide the specific law which mandates htis obligation. If it exists, you should have no trouble winning a lawsuit to force them to run these ads.
The point about TalkLeft was not that is has any such obligation. As a commercial enterprise, I would not expect Jarelyn to do anything that would directly undermine her advertising base. Why expect the networks to do so?
I agree with you in principle about the need for an open discourse, but I disagree that it's any surprise the way things are in regards to the networks. They serve their own interests, which is ad revenue.

Dadler
The TV stations bought and paid for the right to broadcast the material they choose, and those licenses give them the power to refrain from broadcasting material with which they disagree.

Not true. These airwaves belong to the people, the renters of them have a custodial obligation. And they can't broadcast anything they want, (see 'Janet Jackson's teat';-) Besides, it isn't a free PSA, it is paid for. Business practices would dictate 'take the money.'
And what is controversial about being against genocide? Isn't everyone against genocide?

From the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commision
PART 73_RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES--Table of Contents
Subpart H_Rules Applicable to All Broadcast Stations
Sec. 73.1910 Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine is contained in section 315(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which provides that broadcasters
have certain obligations to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. See FCC
public notice ``Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards,''
39 FR 26372. Copies may be obtained from the FCC upon request.
[43 FR 45856, Oct. 4, 1978]
Unfortunately, during the Reagan administration, the Fairness Doctrine was dissolved, and with it the FCC view that station licensess were public trustees, who were obligated to broadcast contrasting perspectives on controversial matters of public importance. Under the current scheme, most issues of public importance are excluded, without explanation, from the commercial airwaves, now that the commercial broadcasters have been liberated from their former role, viewed by them as an imposition, as public trustees. Conversely, the public has little reason to trust the commercial broadcasters.

I can't understand why a TV station in August could afford to turn up they're nose up at ad revenue.
It is a bad situation in Darfur but at the same time who is going to stop it?
The UN? They haven't done a good job at all there and it is starting to look alot like Rwanda or Central Africa. If you want to bugger a kid then the UN is your agency but if you want to feed thousands well then you'll have to go bugger yourself...
There is one nation that could feed and protect those in the camps of Darfur but it is a little preoccuppied right now with vicious Islamist elsewhere.
Perhaps Europe could do something? Perhaps the Chinese who seem to have petroleum interests right near there could help out afterall they did such a good job in Tibet and at Tiamenan Square. They could show those starving people a thing or two about suffering I'm sure.

It is a bad situation in Darfur but at the same time who is going to stop it?

This is not a reason for the networks not to inform the public. The point is there is no longer even the pretense that the networks are the public trustees of the electromagnetic spectrum. Broadcasters were presumed to be the public trustees of a natural resource, with an obligation to keep the citizens of a democracy informed on substantive and controversial matters of public concern; this view has been supplanted by accountability to advertisers. The mass audience, whose financial and political stake in this turn of affairs is negative, passively and uncritically accept this as entirely natural, a testament to the power of the medium to encourage or inhibit analysis. The Darfur commercial would have been unnecessary if broadcasters hadn't abandoned the public trust; the rejection of the commercial stands, through its negative example, as confirmation of the democratic vision that informed the now defunct Fairness Doctrine.

justpaul,
Non-cable TV networks do in fact have a mandate, as part of their broadcasting license, to serve the public interest, and their licenses can be revoked for failing to do so. The reason why is that the nature of the medium is limited -- there are only a few networks, and they control all of the freely available television content.
Regarding your comparison of this situation to websites refusing to host an ad, a website is more akin to a particular tv show than to an entire network. By refusing to air this ad on the networks, it is eliminated from an entire medium -- it's more akin to the ad being banned from the *entire internet* than from a single website, except it's worse than that, because tv networks are legally mandated to serve the public interest, and because, despite the growing influence of new media, publicly licensed broadcast networks are still the primary source of information for most U.S. citizens -- not cable, not satellite radio, and not the internet.